Confirmation Before Going for Linux Server

[DocSwag]

I suggested around a month ago to my mom for us to get a home server for storing files, and with the help of the forum I made a build. Here it is in all it's glory:

http://www.pcpartpicker.com/list/6Q29wV

 

I'll be installing Centos 7 on it. I've decided to go with a Linux server over a NAS because there's a specific thing that I want to set up in our house that can only be done on Linux and a Linux server is much more customizable than something like freenas.

 

We have a 4tb external hdd which I just took apart now, which is why one of the hdds is marked as bought. The other is just an identical copy of it.

 

I also just have a few final questions:

 

For files, is all I have to do is plug the server into the modem or router and it'll be available to all our other computers? Or do I need to do a little more?

 

This is the thing I want to set up on the server. It says to be used on ubuntu server but will it be fine on centos 7?

 

I plan to put raid 1 on the hdds just in case of a drive failure. Can I set that up through Linux or do I do it through the bios?

 

Thanks guys for the help! I'm more of a PC hardware guy and don't know that much about Linux, NAS's and servers, or networking and file sharing in general so thanks for helping me out with this!  

[Mornincupofhate]

I've never done RAID before, but I'm fairly certain you need to have a pci card in order for it.

[BlueCrazii]

You can use thats software anymore because google closed the api that it uses ( This project no longer works because Google locked down entire API.  )

I suggest that u go with freenas or nas4free

[Vitalius]

uh, no clue what the other two people are talking about.

You don't need a PCI card for RAID.

I recommend these OSes in this order:
Amahi
FreeNAS
Debian

 

Do not use RAID 5. I would explain but it's a very long explanation of why. Either use RAID 6, RAID 1 or 10, or no RAID at all.

A server is just a PC that shares services for other computers on a network.

You'll need to create a share on the network for the drives and files you wish to share. If you use Windows, which you probably do, you'll need to use CIFS sharing.

[SCHISCHKA]

15 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

For files, is all I have to do is plug the server into the modem or router and it'll be available to all our other computers? Or do I need to do a little more?

it is easier to use a static IP

17 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

This is the thing I want to set up on the server. It says to be used on ubuntu server but will it be fine on centos 7?

if it works on ubuntu it should work on centos however you might want to read something on that page:

Quote

This project no longer works because Google locked down entire API

 

18 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

I plan to put raid 5 on the hdds just in case of a drive failure. Can I set that up through Linux or do I do it through the bios?

RAID 5 is no longer recommended due to the possibility of drive failure while rebuilding. RAID 6 is the new RAID 5. Set it up on linux using software RAID as it is much more portable. Its even better to use a seperate disk for the OS and data.

 

 

 

 

[dalekphalm]

14 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

I suggested around a month ago to my mom for us to get a home server for storing files, and with the help of the forum I made a build. Here it is in all it's glory:

 http://www.pcpartpicker.com/list/6Q29wVi

 

I'll be installing Centos 7 on it. I've decided to go with a Linux server over a NAS because there's a specific thing that I want to set up in our house that can only be done on Linux and a Linux server is much more customizable than something like freenas.

 

We have a 4tb external hdd which I just took apart now, which is why one of the hdds is marked as bought. The other is just an identical copy of it.

 

I also just have a few final questions:

 

For files, is all I have to do is plug the server into the modem or router and it'll be available to all our other computers? Or do I need to do a little more?

 

This is the thing I want to set up on the server. It says to be used on ubuntu server but will it be fine on centos 7?

 

I plan to put raid 5 on the hdds just in case of a drive failure. Can I set that up through Linux or do I do it through the bios?

 

Thanks guys for the help! I'm more of a PC hardware guy and don't know that much about Linux, NAS's and servers, or networking and file sharing in general so thanks for helping me out with this!  

Before I can comment on your build, you should be aware that your PCPartPicker link is dead.

 

As for allowing people to access your server on the network, you'll need to first setup a Network Share, which is a folder or drive that is shared using network protocols.

https://www.liberiangeek.net/2014/07/create-configure-samba-shares-centos-7/

 

You can also setup users and permissions (Eg: Only certain users have access to certain folders - creating home folders for each person that are private, or simply requiring all users to have a username and password just for basic security, etc).

 

Also, since I can't see your build, it sounds like you've bought 2 drives

Quote

We have a 4tb external hdd which I just took apart now, which is why one of the hdds is marked as bought. The other is just an identical copy of it.

You cannot do a RAID 5 array with only 2 drives. RAID 5 requires a minimum of 3 drives (Though 4 is the most common drive number count for RAID 5 arrays). With a 2-drive setup, you can either do RAID0 (Which just combines the 2 drives, and provides no redundancy), or RAID1 (Which mirrors both drives so they are an exact copy of each other). I would recommend RAID1 with a 2 drive setup. If you really want to do RAID5, then grab yourself 4 drives total.

 

Also make sure you have a SEPARATE HDD or SSD (Or thumb drive, if the OS supports that) for the OS to be installed on. You do not want you RAID or your shared data on the same HDD as the OS. Keeps things much better this way.

4 minutes ago, Mornincupofhate said:

I've never done RAID before, but I'm fairly certain you need to have a pci card in order for it.

This is incorrect information. You should check out some guides and/or videos on the subject - it's very interesting stuff!

 

But you can most certainly have RAID without a PCI (PCIe, really) Card. Linux supports built-in Software RAID (MDADM I believe it's called - there's also Motherboard RAID, which uses the BIOS):

https://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/Installation_Guide-en-US/s1-s390info-raid.html

 

@DocSwag I strongly recommend using the Linux built-in Software RAID over motherboard RAID. You'll get better control over the drives this way.

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes ago, Vitalius said:

uh, no clue what the other two people are talking about.

You don't need a PCI card for RAID.

I recommend these OSes in this order:
Amahi
FreeNAS
Debian

 

Do not use RAID 5. I would explain but it's a very long explanation of why. Either use RAID 6, RAID 1 or 10, or no RAID at all.

A server is just a PC that shares services for other computers on a network.

You'll need to create a share on the network for the drives and files you wish to share. If you use Windows, which you probably do, you'll need to use CIFS sharing.

 

5 minutes ago, SCHISCHKA said:

it is easier to use a static IP

if it works on ubuntu it should work on centos however you might want to read something on that page:

 

RAID 5 is no longer recommended due to the possibility of drive failure while rebuilding. RAID 6 is the new RAID 5. Set it up on linux using software RAID as it is much more portable. Its even better to use a seperate disk for the OS and data.

 

 

 

 

 

While there is a larger risk of an unrecoverable error during a rebuild in RAD5 vs RAID6, the risk is vastly overstated for your average user with a (relatively) small home server.

 

With that in mind, if the data is incredibly sensitive, you'd want to consider a more reliable system, including the ones mentioned above.

 

But in either case, @DocSwag, always remember that RAID != Backup - you'll want to make sure you have at least 2 copies of your files. If your NAS is the primary storage location for your files (Eg: Music, movies, etc), then make sure you're backing up the NAS onto another drive (Either a 2nd NAS that simply replicates the first one, or backing up the NAS to an external HDD over say USB).

 

RAID protects you against hardware failure, and gives you increased uptime. It won't protect against accidental deletion, file corruption, a virus, etc. For example, if you delete a file, the RAID array will delete it from the mirror or the parity data too. If a virus infects a file, that infection spreads in the same manner.

[SCHISCHKA]

6 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

While there is a larger risk of an unrecoverable error during a rebuild in RAD5 vs RAID6, the risk is vastly overstated for your average user with a (relatively) small home server.

I agree I would not go through the expense of redundancy on a home server. Those extra drives are better used as off-line backup. I use RAID0 in my home server because it is faster and i do not have it running 24/7

[DocSwag]

20 minutes ago, Vitalius said:

uh, no clue what the other two people are talking about.

You don't need a PCI card for RAID.

I recommend these OSes in this order:
Amahi
FreeNAS
Debian

 

Do not use RAID 5. I would explain but it's a very long explanation of why. Either use RAID 6, RAID 1 or 10, or no RAID at all.

A server is just a PC that shares services for other computers on a network.

You'll need to create a share on the network for the drives and files you wish to share. If you use Windows, which you probably do, you'll need to use CIFS sharing.

Ok thanks. I'll probably go with Debian since I'd prefer a Linux server. Also, I don't know why I wrote raid 5; it was a typo, I meant raid 1.

19 minutes ago, SCHISCHKA said:

it is easier to use a static IP

if it works on ubuntu it should work on centos however you might want to read something on that page:

 

RAID 5 is no longer recommended due to the possibility of drive failure while rebuilding. RAID 6 is the new RAID 5. Set it up on linux using software RAID as it is much more portable. Its even better to use a seperate disk for the OS and data.

 

 

 

 

Ok thanks. I accidentally put raid 5 for whatever reason I meant raid 1.

 

I swear the leapcast thing was shown to be working just two weeks ago... They changed the read me page within the last few weeks . Whatever.

17 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Before I can comment on your build, you should be aware that your PCPartPicker link is dead.

 

As for allowing people to access your server on the network, you'll need to first setup a Network Share, which is a folder or drive that is shared using network protocols.

https://www.liberiangeek.net/2014/07/create-configure-samba-shares-centos-7/

 

You can also setup users and permissions (Eg: Only certain users have access to certain folders - creating home folders for each person that are private, or simply requiring all users to have a username and password just for basic security, etc).

 

Also, since I can't see your build, it sounds like you've bought 2 drives

You cannot do a RAID 5 array with only 2 drives. RAID 5 requires a minimum of 3 drives (Though 4 is the most common drive number count for RAID 5 arrays). With a 2-drive setup, you can either do RAID0 (Which just combines the 2 drives, and provides no redundancy), or RAID1 (Which mirrors both drives so they are an exact copy of each other). I would recommend RAID1 with a 2 drive setup. If you really want to do RAID5, then grab yourself 4 drives total.

 

Also make sure you have a SEPARATE HDD or SSD (Or thumb drive, if the OS supports that) for the OS to be installed on. You do not want you RAID or your shared data on the same HDD as the OS. Keeps things much better this way.

This is incorrect information. You should check out some guides and/or videos on the subject - it's very interesting stuff!

 

But you can most certainly have RAID without a PCI (PCIe, really) Card. Linux supports built-in Software RAID (MDADM I believe it's called - there's also Motherboard RAID, which uses the BIOS):

https://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/Installation_Guide-en-US/s1-s390info-raid.html

 

@DocSwag I strongly recommend using the Linux built-in Software RAID over motherboard RAID. You'll get better control over the drives this way.

Ya as said above I accidentally wrote raid 5 for whatever reason .

 

Hmmm... so you're saying I should get a small ssd or hdd to store the OS on? Ok, what do you recommend? Is it worth it to grab an ssd (I don't have any lying around or anything) or is a small hdd fine?

 

Also sry about the bad link. I somehow added an extra "i" at the end. It's fixed now.

8 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

 

 

While there is a larger risk of an unrecoverable error during a rebuild in RAD5 vs RAID6, the risk is vastly overstated for your average user with a (relatively) small home server.

 

With that in mind, if the data is incredibly sensitive, you'd want to consider a more reliable system, including the ones mentioned above.

 

But in either case, @DocSwag, always remember that RAID != Backup - you'll want to make sure you have at least 2 copies of your files. If your NAS is the primary storage location for your files (Eg: Music, movies, etc), then make sure you're backing up the NAS onto another drive (Either a 2nd NAS that simply replicates the first one, or backing up the NAS to an external HDD over say USB).

 

RAID protects you against hardware failure, and gives you increased uptime. It won't protect against accidental deletion, file corruption, a virus, etc. For example, if you delete a file, the RAID array will delete it from the mirror or the parity data too. If a virus infects a file, that infection spreads in the same manner.

This isn't the first time I've heard someone say I should use a backup. What do you guys recommend then? Should I just get a 4tb external hdd or something and occasionally plug it into the server and copy all the files over and then unplug it and store it somewhere else?

[DocSwag]

1 minute ago, SCHISCHKA said:

I agree I would not go through the expense of redundancy on a home server. Those extra drives are better used as off-line backup. I use RAID0 in my home server because it is faster and i do not have it running 24/7

I've just heard bad things about the seagate drive I'm using in reviews so I just want to be safe  

[SCHISCHKA]

2 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

I've just heard bad things about the seagate drive I'm using in reviews so I just want to be safe  

an offline backup will only ever be powered on while writing the backup so it doesnt really matter. I would prefer two cheap drives that I can swap offsite than one super expensive one that remains onsite. Get two a different brand or buy from a different batch for the back up drive

[DocSwag]

1 minute ago, SCHISCHKA said:

an offline backup will only ever be powered on while writing the backup so it doesnt really matter. I would prefer two cheap drives that I can swap offsite than one super expensive one that remains onsite. Get two a different brand or buy from a different batch for the back up drive

So how do you suggest doing it? Should I get a dedicated device or something that does that automatically or just get another hard drive and manually copy all the files over to it every once in a while?

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Ok thanks. I'll probably go with Debian since I'd prefer a Linux server. Also, I don't know why I wrote raid 5; it was a typo, I meant raid 1.

Ok thanks. I accidentally put raid 5 for whatever reason I meant raid 1.

 

I swear the leapcast thing was shown to be working just two weeks ago... They changed the read me page within the last few weeks . Whatever.

Ya as said above I accidentally wrote raid 5 for whatever reason .

 

Hmmm... so you're saying I should get a small ssd or hdd to store the OS on? Ok, what do you recommend? Is it worth it to grab an ssd (I don't have any lying around or anything) or is a small hdd fine?

 

Also sry about the bad link. I somehow added an extra "i" at the end. It's fixed now.

This isn't the first time I've heard someone say I should use a backup. What do you guys recommend then? Should I just get a 4tb external hdd or something and occasionally plug it into the server and copy all the files over and then unplug it and store it somewhere else?

Debian is fine - it has a pretty well rounded Server variant, if I recall correctly. Ubuntu would also be a good one (Similar base code, and mostly cross compatible applications). Whichever UI you prefer, really.

 

No worries about the RAID 5 vs RAID 1 typo. It happens.

 

As for the OS, yeah I definitely recommend a dedicated OS drive. SSD is ideal, but it won't really help performance of your actual shared network drive. A small HDD is totally fine, especially if you already have one lying around. I'd recommend at least 60 to 80GB, even though you probably only need a fraction of that size. However, if you're gonna buy a drive anyway, I'd say might as well get like a 64GB SSD (if you can still find them lol).

 

As for backup solution? Yes. Here's my take: If you're doing 4TB RAID1, your backup drive should be at least 4TB in nice. If you have a 4TB backup drive, you could simply configure Linux to schedule a nightly replication of your RAID1 Array onto the 4TB external HDD. You can then disconnect the drive if you wish, or just leave it plugged in.

 

Ideally, you'd use a larger backup drive though - say a 6TB or 8TB external HDD. This allows you to have more then one complete data set.

 

You could use more detailed backup processes (For example: One full backup, then incremental backups nightly during the month, then another full backup every month - Incremental backups will only backup what data is new or changed since the last backup - it saves a lot of space, because you're only backing up new data, and you get to access multiple versions of files, for example).

 

However, you have to work with your budget and how complex you want this to be.

[SCHISCHKA]

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

So how do you suggest doing it? Should I get a dedicated device or something that does that automatically or just get another hard drive and manually copy all the files over to it every once in a while?

the idea of keeping it offline means keeping it unplugged. You want to prevent against lighting hitting your house, fire, theft.

[DocSwag]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Debian is fine - it has a pretty well rounded Server variant, if I recall correctly. Ubuntu would also be a good one (Similar base code, and mostly cross compatible applications). Whichever UI you prefer, really.

 

No worries about the RAID 5 vs RAID 1 typo. It happens.

 

As for the OS, yeah I definitely recommend a dedicated OS drive. SSD is ideal, but it won't really help performance of your actual shared network drive. A small HDD is totally fine, especially if you already have one lying around. I'd recommend at least 60 to 80GB, even though you probably only need a fraction of that size. However, if you're gonna buy a drive anyway, I'd say might as well get like a 64GB SSD (if you can still find them lol).

 

As for backup solution? Yes. Here's my take: If you're doing 4TB RAID1, your backup drive should be at least 4TB in nice. If you have a 4TB backup drive, you could simply configure Linux to schedule a nightly replication of your RAID1 Array onto the 4TB external HDD. You can then disconnect the drive if you wish, or just leave it plugged in.

 

Ideally, you'd use a larger backup drive though - say a 6TB or 8TB external HDD. This allows you to have more then one complete data set.

 

You could use more detailed backup processes (For example: One full backup, then incremental backups nightly during the month, then another full backup every month - Incremental backups will only backup what data is new or changed since the last backup - it saves a lot of space, because you're only backing up new data, and you get to access multiple versions of files, for example).

 

However, you have to work with your budget and how complex you want this to be.

Ok, I'll probably just get a 64gb SSD or something. They don't cost much more than a small hdd anyways so why not.

2 minutes ago, SCHISCHKA said:

the idea of keeping it offline means keeping it unplugged. You want to prevent against lighting hitting your house, fire, theft.

So what exactly are both of you saying? Keep the backup drive always plugged in and have the server automatically backup to it? Or only plug it in say, once a month, and back it up then?

 

There isn't really a "budget;" it's really just keep it as cheap as possible without skimping.

[SCHISCHKA]

10 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Hmmm... so you're saying I should get a small ssd or hdd to store the OS on? Ok, what do you recommend? Is it worth it to grab an ssd (I don't have any lying around or anything) or is a small hdd fine?

SSD isn't necessary for a file server, any drive will do. My Debian server uses just over 1GB of storage. If you want to use debian download the net-install image, it will give you options to not install the things you don't need.

[SCHISCHKA]

2 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Or only plug it in say, once a month, and back it up then?

this. keep it offline and preferably offsite

[DocSwag]

Just now, SCHISCHKA said:

this. keep it offline and preferably offsite

Offsite isn't really that much of an option, since there really isn't anywhere to put it. Offline is totally possible though. So you're suggesting to have something like this just on the side that I can plug in once every month or so and just copy the drives over to it?

[SCHISCHKA]

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

Offsite isn't really that much of an option, since there really isn't anywhere to put it. Offline is totally possible though. So you're suggesting to have something like this just on the side that I can plug in once every month or so and just copy the drives over to it?

yes

[DocSwag]

1 minute ago, SCHISCHKA said:

yes

Ok, I think I've got the final list done then. So you think 4tb is enough then, since the drives are 4tb each anyways? Thanks for the help!

 

PCPartPicker part list: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/mmbXVY
Price breakdown by merchant: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/mmbXVY/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Pentium G4400 3.3GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($57.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Motherboard: MSI H110I Pro Mini ITX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($69.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Memory: Corsair Vengeance LPX 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory  ($51.97 @ Jet) 
Storage: PNY CS1311 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($39.99 @ Best Buy) 
Storage: Seagate Desktop HDD 4TB 3.5" 5900RPM Internal Hard Drive  (Purchased For $0.00) 
Storage: Seagate Desktop HDD 4TB 3.5" 5900RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($114.88 @ OutletPC) 
Case: Fractal Design Node 304 Mini ITX Tower Case  ($89.99 @ Newegg) 
Power Supply: SeaSonic 360W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply  ($58.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
External Storage: Western Digital My Book 4TB External Hard Drive  ($127.00 @ Amazon) 
Total: $610.80
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-12-11 21:44 EST-0500

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

Offsite isn't really that much of an option, since there really isn't anywhere to put it. Offline is totally possible though. So you're suggesting to have something like this just on the side that I can plug in once every month or so and just copy the drives over to it?

Ideally, you use a "3-2-1" backup strategy.

 

That means:

3 Copies of the data

2 different media types (at minimum)

1 offsite copy

 

So an example of that could be:

1 copy on the NAS

1 Copy on a local backup HDD

1 copy on an off-site external HDD that you only connect once a month.

 

 

However, let's be realistic. This is an enterprise/business strategy. Is it useful for home users too? Most definitely! Is it worth the hassle for most people? No.

 

I would recommend forgoing the offline/offsite backup. Having a local backup that you leave plugged in all the time is fine in your situation. If you WANT to have the offline backup that you manually connect every time you want to run the backup? Sure, go for it.

 

But ultimately, the backup that you stick to, is the most effective.

 

On top of that, you can always backup some of the most critical data to a Cloud Storage account, such as Google Drive, OneDrive, DropBox, CrashPlan (A cloud based backup service - very popular), etc. Some have free storage, though whether it'll be enough, only you can say.

[Electronics Wizardy]

24 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

what do you recommend?

Get a flash drive. A 8 or 16gb flash drive will be perfect.

[DocSwag]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Ideally, you use a "3-2-1" backup strategy.

 

That means:

3 Copies of the data

2 different media types (at minimum)

1 offsite copy

 

So an example of that could be:

1 copy on the NAS

1 Copy on a local backup HDD

1 copy on an off-site external HDD that you only connect once a month.

 

 

However, let's be realistic. This is an enterprise/business strategy. Is it useful for home users too? Most definitely! Is it worth the hassle for most people? No.

 

I would recommend forgoing the offline/offsite backup. Having a local backup that you leave plugged in all the time is fine in your situation. If you WANT to have the offline backup that you manually connect every time you want to run the backup? Sure, go for it.

 

But ultimately, the backup that you stick to, is the most effective.

 

On top of that, you can always backup some of the most critical data to a Cloud Storage account, such as Google Drive, OneDrive, DropBox, CrashPlan (A cloud based backup service - very popular), etc. Some have free storage, though whether it'll be enough, only you can say.

OK, I'll probably backup the most crucial files to Google Drive or something then. That's a good idea I didn't think of.

[DocSwag]

OK, thanks everyone for the help! I've got the finished list now that I'll be using. Thanks again for the help! If I have any issues setting it up I'll come back here.

[Vitalius]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

While there is a larger risk of an unrecoverable error during a rebuild in RAD5 vs RAID6, the risk is vastly overstated for your average user with a (relatively) small home server.

 

With that in mind, if the data is incredibly sensitive, you'd want to consider a more reliable system, including the ones mentioned above

He's using 4TB drives.

His chances of a URE during rebuild are pretty significant at 4TB worth of storage with 3 drives or more (which RAID 5's minimum is 3 drives). In fact, I think it's over 70% at 12TB of total storage (3 x 4 = 12).